State v. Ardry
286 P.3d 207
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Ardry pleaded guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child (severity level 3) and separately to unrelated DWI charges in 2007.
- The State recommended a mid-range sentence with a departure to probation; Ardry’s counsel argued for consent defenses and lack of knowledge of the victim’s age.
- The district court sentenced Ardry to 216 months’ imprisonment with a 36-month probation term to be served in a residential center.
- Within days of completing the residential portion, Ardry violated probation (job loss, failure to report, alcohol use, missed sex offender treatment) and the court reconsidered a new placement.
- The court ultimately remanded to serve the original sentence, citing doubts about Ardry’s ability to complete probation and Labette Camp involvement; the Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation.
- Ardry appealed, arguing misstatement of the law and improper consideration of statutory limits and standards for a lesser sentence; the issue centers on whether the district court abused its discretion in revocation ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the revocation sentence review governed by proper statutory standards? | Ardry argues the court misapplied revocation standards. | District court asserts authority to impose a lesser sentence but with proper considerations. | Yes, error found: district court misstated statutory requirements for a lesser sentence. |
| May a district court impose any lesser sentence under K.S.A. 22-3716(b) without explicit reasons? | Ardry contends no explicit reasons are required. | Court can impose a lesser sentence without marginal reasons. | Abuse of discretion to rely on incorrect legal standard; express reasoning not required by statute. |
| Does Apprendi affect the calculation of criminal history for probation revocation? | Ardry challenges the criminal history calculation as violating Apprendi. | State declines; relies on existing Kansas law. | No error; court declines to revisit relevant Kansas authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abasolo v. State, 284 Kan. 299 (2007) (statutory revocation discretion not requiring explicit on-record findings)
- McKnight v. State, 292 Kan. 776 (2011) (plain language allows lesser sentence after revocation; no additional requirements noted)
- Riojas v. State, 288 Kan. 379 (2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law; unlimited review)
- State v. Shopteese, 283 Kan. 331 (2007) (abuse of discretion when court fails to consider proper statutory limits or standards)